At first, you think that you are the problem. That you're new to this world and they know best. After all, they're the ones who have been working in this office for many years.
Brands and the media have been smugly reaping in the benefits of women's vulnerabilities. They believed they had all the control but the democratisation of information on the web has restored the power to the consumer.
Institutionalised sexism is dangerous because it assimilates into our culture to the point that we don't see it anymore, and conforming to the dominant narrative ends up being mistaken for a choice.
I will always support a woman's right to do what she wants with her body. Just please, don't do it and call it news. So excuse me if I don't stop being an opinionated woman. Sorry if I don't burn my Sociology Degree certificate (along with the bras, of course) because my feminism offends you.
For those who justify Page Three with a snide reference to freedom of press: yes, you are right. Give yourself a pat on the back, Piers Morgan. The Sun is entitled to print boobs. The point is whether they should.
As a woman, a journalist and a mum, I don't 'get' what the fuss is all about over page three. Comments about tomorrow's chip paper, poor little crack whores and sexual discrimination do not faze me. They do not convince most discerning consumers.
Back when I signed the petition a couple of years ago, I imagined my goddaughter, who turned five last week, growing up, coming across The Sun one day and wondering why a mainstream newspaper would display a photo like that.
Regardless of how you politicise the debate over objectification what is obvious to most people is that Page 3 has served a purpose in popularising The Sun in the 70s and 80s, but is now of another time.
The heterosexual women that Scarcella interviewed explained that oral sex required a greater level of vulnerability and they felt more comfortable giving, rather than receiving sexual pleasure. Scarcella concluded that straight women need to have more self confidence and more body confidence.
It's smug, it's nasty, it's a publicity triumph. It also reaffirms what campaigners have always said about Page 3: That The Sun's loyalty to Page 3 is a commitment to disempowering women under the guise of that age-old defence of sexism: "it's just harmless fun".
While we may have no power on the decision to kill off Page 3, public opinion is everything. There is arguably far greater power in influencing the mood around representations of women in media. And this has certainly happened.
I looked at the Page 3 girls and hoped I'd look like Linda Lusardi when I was older. I blushed when various family members and friends would comment on my body - no part of it was left unscrutinised by the people that surrounded me, male and female. I'd say that started around the age of eight.
Taking the bare boobs out of The Sun is a momentous step in the right direction. But let's not dance in the street just yet (maybe just a few fireworks and a glass of bubbly?). We're not done people.
This is the problem with institutionalised sexism (or racism, or homophobia, or institutionalised anything) - it's insidious and works at an almost subconscious level. It takes an inherently wrong and damaging mentality and normalises it.
Men who wouldn't win a prize at Crufts feel entitled to judge the appearance of women and find them lacking, as if they've wilfully failed to conform to conventional standards of beauty out of spite. Men who might easily be mistaken for Dobby the House Elf, feel wronged when the office isn't staffed with eye candy of a standard they deem high enough.
Like a creepy uncle contemplating emigration, page three is unlikely to be missed. But the hydra-headed jubilation in some of the press is little more than an unseemly basking in a class-tinged tyranny of some people's taste over others, which distracts from an appreciation of painful economic inequality.